StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Sure.

But that's Trek - years of TV, some of it boring, some of it exciting, and some very uneven quality, but overall it's good.

Trek is not something that can be summed up with 100 minutes of screen time, no matter how big the budget.

Could you fit all of Star Trek's history into one film? No. Of course not.

Could you capture the essentials of what Star Trek is? I think so.

Essentially, the core of Star Trek is "Mostly optimistic exploration of moral dilemmas/the human condition through futuristic space adventures centred around a solid ensemble cast."

You can do that in a film, if you have a good writer.

I mean, I'd argue Doctor Who managed to capture the core of what the show was over fifty years in a single mini-movie with Day of the Doctor, which was essentially a glorified TV episode. So it can be done.

Yeah they did capture it - In Star Trek TMP, TFF and STI. The first one is considered very boring by most people and the other two are disliked quite a bit.

Trek doesn't work on the big screen. Not for the dollar return.

Prometheus Unbound wrote:Yeah they did capture it - In Star Trek TMP, TFF and STI. The first one is considered very boring by most people and the other two are disliked quite a bit.

Trek doesn't work on the big screen. Not for the dollar return.

While you have a point. TMP & TFF are TOS episodes writ large (all power probes and meeting gods) their Trek like elements are not the reason why people dislike them. TMP was poorly paced with lots of padding and TFF sabotaged the other characters to make Kirk look good. Likewise STI gets a lot of flak because people don't agree with the moral message it's pushing.

And why are we ignoring the Trek movie successes? TWOK, TVH, TUC? There's nothing unTrek like about them. Especially the latter two. TUC is about enemies becoming friends and is general optimistic we will overcome prejudice.

TWoK and TUC have battles in but then so do many Trek episodes. And they're not constant whizzbang extravaganzas like nuTrek.

Yes, some adaptation is need you need a little more spectacle than you have with telly. But there's nothing inherently unworkable about trek on the big screen.

Prometheus Unbound wrote:Yeah they did capture it - In Star Trek TMP, TFF and STI. The first one is considered very boring by most people and the other two are disliked quite a bit.

Trek doesn't work on the big screen. Not for the dollar return.

Its been a while since I saw Final Frontier, but I would actually say that it doesn't meet one of the criteria I described based on the accusations of hurting the other characters to glorify Kirk- that of a solid ensemble cast.

I can't speak to Insurrection because I haven't really watched it.

Anyway, Voyager Home and First Contact both met my criteria very well, at least for the most part.

The Romulan Republic wrote:

Prometheus Unbound wrote:Yeah they did capture it - In Star Trek TMP, TFF and STI. The first one is considered very boring by most people and the other two are disliked quite a bit.

Trek doesn't work on the big screen. Not for the dollar return.

Its been a while since I saw Final Frontier, but I would actually say that it doesn't meet one of the criteria I described based on the accusations of hurting the other characters to glorify Kirk- that of a solid ensemble cast.

I can't speak to Insurrection because I haven't really watched it.

Anyway, Voyager Home and First Contact both met my criteria very well, at least for the most part.

The problem I have with Insurrection is that they don't really explore any alternative options for solving the problem, (like maybe setting up a hospital on the opposite side of the planet so people benefit form the special radiation), and that is may have been justifiable, if the admiral was telling the truth that harvesting the particles could help billions of people. Personally, I think the concept would have worked better if they revisited the Native Americans that they basically were in the Admiral's role in, during that one episode w/ the Traveler & Wesley...

biostem wrote:The problem I have with Insurrection is that they don't really explore any alternative options for solving the problem, (like maybe setting up a hospital on the opposite side of the planet so people benefit form the special radiation)

They did raise that point, with the answer that the Son'a were so far gone that the normal intensity of the radiation wouldn't be able to help them.

Captain Seafort wrote:

biostem wrote:The problem I have with Insurrection is that they don't really explore any alternative options for solving the problem, (like maybe setting up a hospital on the opposite side of the planet so people benefit form the special radiation)

They did raise that point, with the answer that the Son'a were so far gone that the normal intensity of the radiation wouldn't be able to help them.

Too bad they never bothered to investigate that transporter accident that made Picard, Ro, and Guinan young...

Or the incident where they intentionally and on purpose de-aged Dr Pulaski

Prometheus Unbound wrote:Yeah they did capture it - In Star Trek TMP, TFF and STI. The first one is considered very boring by most people and the other two are disliked quite a bit.

Trek doesn't work on the big screen. Not for the dollar return.

Basically, you're taking these 3 examples, and saying "hi-concept sci-fi Trek" doesn't work in cinema - it only works on TV.

I mean, I understand your point, given the track record here. But really, each of these cases has something of an explanation. With TMP, Gene Roddenberry was trying to copy 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is legendary for being boring until they get to HAL. He thought audiences would be intrigued by endless shots of the Enterprise docking, and that the idea of an alien probe in search of it's creator would be awesome hi-concept sci-fi that everyone would love. And yeah, the idea is pretty interesting (it's basically the plot of The Changeling), but overall TMP was pretty boring, and more importantly, pretty much nothing like the actual series. Star Trek 2, on the other hand, was more in touch with the actual series ... it was similar to that episode (I can't recall the name), where the Enterprise encounters Romulans for the first time and they have something of a "submarine" type action sequence in space. It's similar to the ending of Wrath of Khan.

With Star Trek V... it was just one disaster after another. They let William Shatner direct, and the plot was another one of Gene Roddenberry's "false god" scenarios. Plus it had all sorts of budget and production problems.

Arguably, Star Trek First Contact actually was a "hi-concept sci-fi Trek" idea that more or less worked in cinema. I didn't really like it, but it was mostly well-received. I mean, it certainly wasn't the "big Borg action extravaganza" that everyone thought it would be from the trailers.

The point is, I don't really think Trek needs to be action-oriented - the only real case for that is the insane success of Star Trek 2, which ... if you watch it now, is pretty slow moving. I mean, it's considered a good movie mainly for the themes, the relationship between Kirk and Khan, the "no-win" scenario and Spock dying, and also Ricardo Montalban just being fucking awesome. In other words, it wasn't successful because of the (limited) action - it was successfuly because of the characters.

I think a more idea-driven, high-concept take on Trek could work in the movies ... it's just that nobody's really tried lately, and the new Abrams movies were really more of a nostalgic cash-in than a proper Trek movie.

-

- double post

double post - damn these new icons .... I keep clicking the "quote" icon thinking it's the edit icon ... sigh

...

.

lol